Those following the ObamaCare case in the Supreme Court probably know that four words are at the heart of it: "established by the state." More details here, but it boils down to one question: Did the authors of the law really intend to provide tax subsidies only to enrollees of state exchanges, leaving those who joined via the federal exchange out of luck? If that's the case, as ObamaCare opponents in the court case maintain, then the law is likely doomed financially. At the New York Times today, Robert Pear interviews Republicans and Democrats directly involved with drafting the law, and the answer seems clear: Nobody thinks that was the law's intent. Some examples:
- Olympia Snowe: "It was never part of our conversations at any point," says the former Republican senator. "Why would we have wanted to deny people subsidies? It was not their fault if their state did not set up an exchange." She called the four words “inadvertent language."